Twin studies suggest that propensity to smoke and ability to quit smoking are influenced by genetic factors. As a means of investigating the risk of smoking associated with genetic polymorphisms in the dopamine transporter (SLC6A3) and the D2 dopamine receptor (DRD2) genes, a case-control study of 289 smokers and 233 nonsmoking controls and a case series analysis of smokers were conducted. A significant effect for SLC6A3 and a significant gene-gene interaction were found in a logistic regression model, indicating that individuals with SLC6A3-9 genotypes were significantly less likely to be smokers, especially if they also had DRD2-A2 genotypes. Smokers with SLC6A3-9 genotypes were also significantly less likely to have started smoking before 16 years of age and had prior smoking histories indicating a longer period of prior smoking cessation. This study provides preliminary evidence that the SLC6A3 gene may influence smoking initiation and nicotine dependence.
The recent cloning of a breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1), and determination of the locus of a related gene (BRCA2), offers potential for clinical genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. This study examined interest in and expectations about an impending genetic test among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of breast cancer patients. One hundred five females completed two structured telephone interviews to assess demographics, breast cancer risk factors, psychological factors, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Overall, 91% of FDRs said that they would want to be tested, 4% said they would not, and 5% were uncertain. The most commonly cited reasons for wanting genetic testing were to learn about one's children's risk, to increase use of cancer screening tests, and to take better care of oneself. Women with less formal education were motivated by childbearing decisions and future planning to a greater degree than were women with education beyond high school. Most women anticipated a negative psychological impact of positive test results, involving increased anxiety (83%), depression (80%), and impaired quality of life (46%). In addition, 72% of women indicated that they would still worry if they tested negative. In multivariate regression analysis, level of baseline depression was the strongest predictor of an anticipated negative impact of genetic testing (Beta = .15; P, .0001). These results suggest that the demand for genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility may be great, even among women who are not likely to have predisposing mutations.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
In this article the authors report on the short-term impact of incorporating biomarker feedback about exposure and genetic susceptibility into minimal-contact quit-smoking counseling (QSC). Four hundred and twenty-seven smokers were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: (a) QSC, (b) QSC + exposure biomarker feedback (EBF) about carbon monoxide in exhaled breath, or (b) QSC + EBF + biomarker feedback about genetic susceptibility to lung cancer (SBF). We observed significant immediate positive effects of SBF, compared with EBF and QSC on perceived risk, perceived quitting benefits, and fear arousal. However, at the 2-month follow-up, there were no group differences in quit rates. SBF did lead to significant reductions in the number of cigarettes smoked for smokers who were in the preparation stage. Smokers in the EBF and QSC conditions showed reductions in depressive symptoms by 2 months, but smokers in the SBF condition did not. In the context of QSC, genetic feedback may heighten vulnerability and possibly promote distress, but may not immediately enhance quitting in most smokers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.